|Received:||12/3/2009 1:09:37 PM|
|Agency:||Federal Trade Commission|
|Rule:||Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration: A Series of Roundtable Discussions" - August, September, and December, 2009|
Comments:In the state of Michigan, someone could win a case by default if the other party doesn't show up. How does the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act address this issue? The only thing I could find associated with default is that it is not an admission of responsibility to the debt but it does not address if the plaintiff still has to validate the debt should the defendant ask for validation once judgement has been entered. I find that there is conflict between the FDCPA and Michigan law addressing default judgements. I don't think a default judgement should be entered in these type of cases because it is not favorable for the consumer and there is an unfair advantage since most consumers will probably represent themselves and the other party would be an Attorney. So, I feel that default judgments should be addressed and clarified in the FDCPA. I was told that I had lost by default and that the plaintiff did not have to validate the debt. This is not fair and any amount could be asked for and then not proven.